E 407 

.T57 


■ .'■:■■ ' 


'. . ...'.,..:. ::■ 


••■ ■ ''■:'■■:■:■ .... ''■'•■' ' 




',';.'■:•'.'.'■'•'; ; ' ■ 


■ ■ ■ ::•::: ::'\' . . ' .' ■ :■■■ 
■■-■■■ ■..■•-...■■■. 





















> 

^ ** • . o °* ^ °0 ** . , , • * .0° 








<^ 



^ 



*. V *. _< ° 










v v ** 



A* V 



7 : £°* '-IRK * * ^ ~'11lii? : ^ "^Pl 






v3 



^o< 



i0- - 



8?^ 






'•■ % s • HI 






.Of, 



^ 









SPEECH 



HON. DANIEL R. TILDEN, OF OHIO, 



THE MEXICAN WAR AND SLAVERY. 



DELITERBD 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 4, 1847. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF BLAIR AND RIVES. 

1847. 



<^o 






r- 









IMEXGMANSE 
4VN e #91? 



THE SLAVERY QUESTION 



The Bill making Appropriations for the Civil and 
Diplomatic Expenses of the Government, being 
under consideration in Committee of theWhole — 

Mr. TILDEN said: 

Mr. Chairman: I have been waiting for some 
time to present a few remarks on this Mexican war, 
and the present is perhaps as favorable an oppor- 
tunity as 1 will get for doing it. This subject has 
become one of paramount interest in the public 
estimation, and we shall be held to a strict account- 
ability for the course we pursue in regard to it. 
My object at this time is to justify the course which 
I have heretofore, and which I intend hereafter, to 
pursue upon all questions having relation to this 
war. 

Those with whose views my own coincideupon 
this subject, have been denounced as wanting in 
fidelity to the country, and the term " traitor" has 
not been considered too harsh or offensive to be 
applied to them. Now, sir, I have no high claim 
to patriotism; 1 am not remarkably gifted in that 
way; and certainly profess none of that extrava- 
gant love of country which sometimes manifests 
itself over the way. I have none of that deep and 
absorbing love of country which drives out every 
selfish and personal consideration. This is a virtue 
much talked of, but very rarely witnessed. I do, 
however, profess to have some just sense of what 
is due from the citizen to the Government; and I 
trust I shall at all times be ready to make every 
necessary and proper sacrifice for the maintenance 
of the true interests and honor of my country. 
And I am not willing to submit to these charges of 
treason without at least making an effort to defend 
myself; and this becomes the more necessary at 
this time, from the new and extraordinary repre- 
sentations which have been made by the Presi- 
dent in his last annual message, as to the causes 
and objects of this war. This message, I presume, 
has gone to the fireside of every family in my dis- 
trict, and the statements it contains arc enforced by 
all the power which the high and commanding 

!>osition of the President of this republic is calcu- 
ated to give to his opinions. 

It is true, that I have never felt called upon to 
support this war; I voted against the first propo- 
sition that was introduced here for supplies for its 
prosecution; and with all the reflection I have been 
able to give, I have not yet satisfied myself that 1 
erred in giving that vote. I believed then, as I now 



believe, that the war was both unjust and unneces- 
sary, and forced upon us by the unauthorized and 
unconstitutional act of the President; and that it 
was due to the honor of the country and to the 
general interests of mankind, that we recede 
from the position we had been made to occupy. 
And however little favor these opinions may meet 
with on this floor, I am constrained to believe they 
are the opinions entertained by a very large por- 
tion of the people of this country. I think we 
have had an unmistakeable expression of popular 
condemnation of this war. It is to these war 
measures of this Administration, more than to any 
other feature in its ruinous policy, that the public 
mind has been directed; and by them, more than 
all else, has been effected that most extraordinary 
political revolution, which the country has under- 
gone within the last few months. And even upon 
this floor, sir, notwithstanding all that may have 
been said in its favor, I doubt much if it has 
many very sincere friends. On the Whig side of 
the House, I do not understand there is any differ- 
ence of opinion as to the character of this war. 
Divest the subject of the difficulty which exists 
in the minds of certain gentlemen of the power of 
the Government to recede from this conflict with 
Mexico without a sacrifice of its honor — leave the 
question open so that this House might consider 
and determine upon the causes and objects of the 
war, and 1 believe I hazard nothing in saying that 
the Whigs would be unanimous in opposition to 
it. The difference of opinion among them is not 
in fact whether the war shall, or shall not, be 
prosecuted; but it is a difference of opinion as to 
the best means of getting out of the difficulty into 
which we have been plunged by the President. 
I, of course, cannot be presumed to express con- 
fidently an opinion as to what are the private views 
entertained of this war by gentlemen over the 
way, not being in their counsels. If they are 
really in favor of it, or believe that the people have 
adopted this war of the President's, they have 
certainly a very odd way of showing it. 

I have been informed, Mr. Chairman, that there 
have been great misgivings among your friends, 
when they bave contemplated their relation to this 
question. I wonder, sir, if you have never heard 
it whispered in your party councils, so often con- 
vened in this Capitol, that you must get out of this 
war, or the hopes of the Democratic party would 
be blasted. I have heard as much; and upon thia 



ground alone can be explained the extraordinary 
course which your party have pursued upon this 
floor in regard to this war. You have acted as 
though you believed the people were not with 
you upon it 

You resolved, on the motion of the gentleman 
from Missouri, [Mr. Sims,] a few weeks since, 
that the people of this country were too patriotic — 
yes, too patriotic — to refuse any necessary tax for 
the support of a just war. But why is it, \ in- 

auire of gentlemen present — why is it, after having 
ius unanimously resolved that the people have 
Eatriotism enough to support a just war, that you 
ave not made your appeal to that patriotism ? I 
understand that, at the. last session of Congress, 
you so remodelled the revenue system, that no 
more money was to be received into the treasury 
than was necessary to meet the current expenses 
of the Government in time of peace. Nothing, 
then, in the way of revenue, under the present 
system, is to be expected for paying off that enor- 
mous national debt with which you are now bur- 
dening the people of this country. Why not pay 
as you go in this business, and appeal directly to 
the people, in the form of taxation, for the means 
for carrying on this war? Why beg through all 
the money markets of the Union for these means ? 
Why encounter a loss of millions, by way of dis- 
count on your loans? And, above all, why is it 
that your party, who, for the last ten years, have 
boasted of their purpose to establish for us an exclu- 
sively metallic currency, are now about to fasten 
upon us one of the vilest systems of paper circu- 
lation that ever cursed this or any other country — 
an issue of twenty-eight millions of treasury notes, 
based upon nothing for their payment but the bro- 
ken-down credit of the Government? This you 
are now about to bring upon the country, with its 
long train of evils — inflated prices, wild and reck- 
less speculation, ultimate ruin to the laboring 
classes, and advantage only to the unprincipled 
and swindling speculator. 

Why is it, I again inquire, you do not at once 
resort to a tax upon the people, and escape the 
consequences of your present legislation ? The 
answer is, you dare not. You know this war has 
no popularity with the people, and you are afraid 
to ask for the means for carrying it on. 

The gentleman on my right, the gentleman from 
Tennessee, [Mr. Johnson,] is opposed to a duty 
on tea and coffee. He objects to a tax on people's 
stomachs. He is willing to strew the plains of 
Mexico with the mouldering and shattered skele- 
tons of our brave men, but feels too deeply for the 
dear people to impose what he calls a tax upon 
their stomachs. How much better is a man's 
stomach than a man ! 

Another Democratic gentleman, equally patri- 
otic, the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Wick,] 
has equally strong objections to a direct tax on 
luxuries; and thus, by this most happy difference 
of opinion, the danger of a tax in any form is avoid- 
ed. Whatever may be the real opinions of the 
friends of the Administration of this war, how- 
ever much they may be opposed to it, and what- 
ever fears they may have of its consequences, they 
are compelled by political considerations to press 
it on. It has been commenced by them, and they 



must give the war popularity, or the war will give 
them (in the language of the gentleman from Indi- 
ana yesterday) tribulation. [Laughter.] But enough 
upon this point. 

I proposed in the outset to inquire (and that was 
my principal object in rising) into the statements 
of fact which the President has made, and which 
he has urged to the country as a justification for 
bringing this war upon us. 

His first ground of justification is, that the war 
was necessary as a means for enforcing an indem- 
nity for claims due by Mexico to our citizens. 
And first as to these claims: There are many of 
them no doubt valid, and which Mexico is honor- 
ably bound to pay; while there are others (accord- 
ing to the opinion of those who are best informed 
upon this subject) which she ought not to pay. 
Many of these losses, for which indemnity is now 
asked, have resulted from the attempts of our citi- 
zens to violate the revenue laws of Mexico. But 
whatever may be the amount justly due, there is 
no doubt it would have been long since honorably 
adjusted, but for the continual outrages which the 
citizens of this country, with the acquiescence of 
the Government 1 , have committed upon that de- 
fenceless people. And had we paid Mexico, as 
we once proposed to do, for that of which we have 
since robbed her, it would have been more than 
sufficient to have liquidated every demand of our 
citizens against her. More than fifteen years ago, 
we offered to purchase Texas from Mexico, and 
five millions of dollars were offered her for this 
province. She refused to cede it to us. We re- 
newed the offer; and so pertinaciously and offen- 
sively was this subject pressed upon her by our 
Minister near that Government, that Mexico de- 
manded his recall. Finding all our efforts for an 
honorable acquisition of this territory useless, the 
plan was at once set on foot in the southern section 
of this Union to wrest it from Mexico by force. 

How far the adjustment of this question of claims 
has been embarrassed by this robbery of territory 
which we ourselves valued at five millions of dol- 
lars, 1 leave to the good sense of this country to 
decide. I am not one of those who deem it a duty 
to keep out of view the moral aspect of this ques- 
tion. We are the. last people in the world that can 
afford to be dishonest. This republic must rest 
upon the virtue and intelligence of the people, or it 
will fall; and I hold him to be no true friend of the 
country who will advocate iniquity, either in the 
home administration of our affairs, or in our inter- 
course with other nations. But is it true, that an 
indemnity for claims due our citizens entered at all 
into the motives of the President in bringing this 
war upon the country ? 

Is it true that the man who vetoed the French 
spoliation bill, turning a deaf ear to the claims 
of our citizens, who for more than forty years 
have hung around these doors, asking for that 
which we, by our treaty with France, solemnly 
agreed to pay; the man who set at naught the 
decision of the people in regard to these claims, 
and trampled the national faith under his feet; 
the man, too, who, during his whole political 
career on this floor, distinguished himself by his 
uniform and uncompromising opposition to private 
claims, — has this same man all at once plunged 



this Government into a war with Mexico, at a sac- 
rifice of untold millions of our treasure, and thou- 
sands of the lives of our people, in his zeal to pro- 
mote the private interest of our citizens ? 1 defy 
the simplest of mankind to be deceived by this 
statement. This whole story is an afterthought, 
got up in order to give popularity to this war, by 
awakening the national prejudices against Mexico. 
How was it, sir, during the last Presidential can- 
vass ? These claims, such as they are, then existed 
in all their force; and who among the friends of 
this Administration at that time talked of war as a 
means of enforcing their payment? Who among 
all of your stump orators, from the St. Johns to 
the Sabine, told us that within a year we were to 
make a bloody onslaught upon Mexico to enforce 
these claims? Not one. But, on the contrary, 
when we predicted that war would be the result of 
the annexation of Texas, you laughed us in our 
faces, and declared there would be no war. 

But time will not permit me to dwell longer upon 
this part of the subject. The facts to which I have 
adverted, however, are sufficient to show that war 
with Mexico, for the purpose of enforcing an in- 
demnity for claims due our citizens, was among 
the last ideas that occupied the mind of the Presi- 
dent prior to the actual commencement of hostili- 
ties. 

The next fact to which the President refers, in 
justification of this war, is, that the territory upon 
which hostilities were commenced, was within the 
limits of the United States. To this point I ask 
the special attention of the committee, for upon it 
turns the decision of this whole question. For no 
intelligent man will deny that the cause of this 
war was the marching of our army to the Rio 
Grande. The annexation of Texas I have ever 
considered a flagrant outrage, as well upon the 
Constitution of the country as of the rights of 
Mexico. But I waive this, and concede that it was 
the duty of the President (as I believe it was) to 
repel the invasion of any portion of the territory 
which we had acquired by this act of annexation. 
Was this territory a part of the Republic of Texas? 
I answer, no. And to prove this, I shall content 
myself with the examination of one or two facts 
upon which the President relies in his last annual 
message for upholding our title to this territory. 

The first statement of the President, in order to 
make out our title, is, " that Texas constituted a 
' part of the ancient province of Louisiana, ceded 
' to the dinted States in 1803; and that Mr. Pink- 
' ney and Mr. Monroe, [during the negotiation of 
' that treaty,] in a note to the Spanish Minister, 
' declared that the limits of Louisiana were the 
' Perdido on the east, and the Bravo on the west." 
What use the President proposes to make of this, 
or what part it is .1 > id to perform in his argu- 
ment, I con i 1 amno able to comprehend. And 
I call upon his friends In re to explain how it is, 
that he has gone bach of our treaty with Spain, 
and our subsequent treaty with Mexico, in order 
to make out this title. There was a doctrine con- 
tended for, a few years agoj at the other end of the 
Capitol, in order to prostrate Mr. Webster for the 
very distinguished services he rendered the coun- 
try in concluding the treaty of Washington, " that 
' the Government hail no power to make a treaty 



' of limits upon the principles of compromise and 
' concession, of grants on one side for equivalents 
' on the other." Our President was then, I believe, 
a convert to this doctrine; but never was the doc- 
trine carried so far as to abrogate a treaty which 
had been ratified by the Government. And, sir, 
the President cannot, with much propriety, at this 
time object to a treaty concluded upon principles 
of compromise; for if there be anything by which 
his Administration will be remembered, it will be 
the distinguished compromises he made in con- 
cluding the Oregon treaty. I once more inquire of 
his friends here, Why the President has gone back 
to the Louisiana treaty ? Why he has referred to 
to the declarations of Messrs. Pinkney and Mon- 
roe, made during the negotiation of that treaty? 
He who has complained so much of the bad faith 
of Mexico, does he mean to disregard the faith of 
his own Government, twice plighted by treaty, and 
by which we have acknowledged the title to this 
territory to be in Mexico ? 1 might leave the Pres- 
ident's friends to answer these inquiries, but I an- 
swer for them. The President does not intend to 
avow a disregard of these treaties, but he has em- 
ployed this poor artifice to betray the public judg- 
ment into a false view of the real character of this 
war. Thus much for our title to this territory by 
virtue of the Louisiana treaty. 

Now, sir, there is one other ground of title put 
forth by the President in his last message, to which 
I ask the attention of the committee. However, 
before I proceed to this, let me say, that men of 
all shades of opinion upon this question of terri- 
tory, agree, that the western boundary of Texas, 
as one of the States of the Mexican confederacy, 
was the river Nueces. And the question now is, 
by what means Texas has extended her title two 
hundred miles beyond this river to the left bank 
of the Rio Grande. 

Upon this point the President in his message 
says, " that Texas extended her civil and political 
jurisdiction over this country up to thatboundary." 
Sir, what was this civil and political jurisdiction of 
which the President speaks ? The country have a 
deep interest in knowing; and this Administration 
has never made itself intelligible upon this point. 
And I chaise here, fearless of successful con- 
tradiction, that the whole argument of the Presi- 
dent and his friends upon this subject of jurisdic- 
tion, has been false and deceptive throughout. 
The whole country between these two rivers has 
been grouped together and treated as a whole. We 
have heard much of the country beyond the Nueces 
and between these two rivers. We have heard of 
this country being represented in the Texan Con - 
gress and the Texan Convention, of the establish- 
ment of custom-houses and land offices, of the lay- 
ing out of post-roads, the organization of courts, 
&c. Now, but, all tiu -■<• representations, from which 
the people are left to infer that the complete sover- 
eignty over this whole country between these two 
rivers was vested ill the. republic of Texas, is up- 
held by the simple fact that she fa id possession of, 
and ' ercised jurisdiction over, a small corner of 
the department of Tamaulipas, the town of Cor- 
pus Christi three mil< a beyond the .\neces, and a 
small portion of the adjacent country. This is 
the jurisdiction beyond the Nueces, and this is the 



6 



jurisdiction over the country between the two rivers, 
so much talked of by the President and his friends. 
And if this be not so, let any gentleman who hears 
me contradict it, for I desire to be right in these 
matters. I aver, and aver it here, that opportuni- 
ty may be given to contradict it if it be not true, 
that this whole story about the jurisdiction of 
Texas over this territory rests upon no other foun- 
dation than this. 

Again and again have we called on the fiiends 
of the President to state where, how, and when 
jurisdiction over this country was exercised, but 
they have maintained a studied silence on the sub- 
ject. The beauty and force of their argument con- 
sisted in keeping dark on these points. To this, 
I believe there is but one exception. The gentle- 
man from Tennessee, [Mr. Stanton,] with very 
great indiscretion, as it appeared to me at the time, 
did attempt to inform the House of the manner in 
which this jurisdiction had been exercised. First, 
he informed us that this whole territory had been 
divided into two great counties, San Patricio and 
Bexar. He further informed us that Texas, in 
December, 1836, organized inferior courts in these 
counties, and at the same time established a land 
office and land district there. But where was the 
land office? The answer is, at Corpus Christi ! 
He also stated that in June, 1837, Texas establish- 
ed a collection district extending to the mouth of 
the Rio Grande. But where was the custom-house? 
At Corpus Christi. So the gentleman's argument 
proves, what every intelligent man who has ex- 
amined this subject well knew before, that the only 
jurisdiction actually exercised over this country, 
was exercised at Corpus Christi; and that all the 
other acts of Texas by which she claims title to 
this territory are acts upon paper, and give her as 
much right, and no more, as Pennsylvania would 
acquire to territory in Maryland, by resolving in 
her Legislature that such territory belonged to her. 
But this is not all. The country between these 
two rivers, as we know, has a great natural divis- 
ion — a desert which separates the waters of the 
Nueces from those of the Rio Grande, and that the 
only inhabitable country lies along the banks of 
these two rivers. I choose separately to consider 
the question, how it is we have pushed our claim 
across this desert to the territory lying upon the 
Rio Grande. What pretence of title can Texas 
set up to this section of country? What jurisdic- 
tion has she ever exercised here? Has she ever 
organized a court, erected a custom-house, a land 
office, established a post road, or maintained mili- 
tary possession of one foot of this territory ? Can 
any gentleman point me to a single fact which can 
be tortured into an act of sovereignty, and upon 
which we can base a claim to this territory ? No; 
it cannot be done. The gentleman from Texas, 
[Mr. Pillsbury,] a few days ago, was interroga- 
ted upon this subject, and in a short speech made 
what I considered a lame and impotent effort to 
give color to our claims; but lame and impotent as 
it was, no doubt the very best that could be made. 
He informed us that Mexico had no soldiers east 
of the Rio Grande, 'except at the small town of 
Loredo; that nowhere east of that river was there 
any Mexican force permanently maintained ade- 
quate to keep possession. It is, then, because 



Mexico has not maintained an armed force among 
her peaceable inhabitants on the Rio Grande ade- 
quate to repel invasion, that we become entitled to 
their territory ! The gentleman refers us to no 
acts of Texas by which her title is to be made out, 
and for the very sufficient reason that none exist 
to which he can refer. 

Sir, our first impression with regard to this claim 
of Texas to the territory upon the left bank of the 
Rio Grande was correct. At the time the Tyler 
treaty was pending in the Senate, Mr. Benton in- 
troduced in that body this resolution: 

" Resolved, That the incorporation of the left bank of the 
Rio del Norte into the American Union, by virtue of a treaty 
with Texas, comprehending, as the said incorporation wouii 
do, a part of the Mexican departments of New Mexico, Chi- 
huahua, Coahuila, and Tamuulipas, would be an act of di- 
rf.ct aggression on Mexico; tor all the consequences 
of which the United States would stand responsible." 

Now, if the incorporation of this territory by 
treaty into the American Union be an act of direct 
aggression on Mexico, I beg to be informed why 
it is the marching of our army there, and driving 
out her inhabitants, was not an act of direct hos- 
tilities on Mexico? Yet this same gentleman, with 
that moral and political inconsistency which has 
marked his course, on the war bill of the last ses- 
sion, avowed that the attempt to repel the invasion 
of this territory by Mexico was the " shedding of 
American blood upon American soil." 

In this resolution the whole country at that time 
concurred; and I know there was then but one 
opinion in this House upon that subject, and that 
opinion we expressed in the annexation resolu- 
tions, in which we refused to recognise the bound- 
ary by which Texas had extended her limits to the 
Rio Grande. But in this, as in all other matters 
that relate to the annexation of Texas, the private 
views of the President prevailed over the opinions 
of the people. No sooner were the annexation 
resolutions adopted, than we find an agent of the 
President in Texas, giving assurances, in disregard 
of the law of Congress, that if the overture of an- 
nexation was accepted by them, this Government 
would guarantee their claim of territory to the Rio 
Grande. This agent, Mr. Donelson, in his de- 
spatch to the Secretary of War, dated July 11, 
1845, says: " I have encouraged no aggressive 
' movement to take forcible possession of the Rio 
' Grande. I have nevertheless omitted no oppor- 
1 (unity of satisfying all parties here that the United 
' States would in good faith maintain the claim, and 
' that I had every reason to believe they would do 
• so successfully.'' This is the bargain we are 
now enforcing at a sacrifice, of so much of the blood 
and treasure of the country. 

And this Mr. Donelson in this despatch furnishes 
to the Secretary the grounds upon which we must 
base our title to this territory. He says "the grounds 
upon which this claim appears to him defensible are, 
fiist, the revolutionary right of Texas to enforce 
such a political organization as they may deem 
necessary 'to their happiness; second, the acknowl- 
edgement of Santa Ana, by whose concessions in 
1836 his army was allowed to return to Mexico, 
and carry with them valuable arms and munitions, 
by which Texas was prevented from following up 
the advantages of victory, among which was the 
opportunity of establishing herself on the Rio 



Grande; third, the capacity of Texas, if not now, at 
least in a short period, to establish by force her claim 
to this boundary; fourth, the United States, after 
annexation, in addition to the foregoing grounds, 
will have the older one founded on the Louisiana 
claim; but fifth, and lastly, to which all these con- 
siderations are but subsidiary, the necessity which 
exists for the establishment of the Rio Grande as 
the boundary between the two nations." 

Here, then, are the grounds of our title, as fur- 
nished by the President's own agent, after care- 
fully consulting with the most distinguished men 
in Texas. They are in fact the grounds of title 
which Texas herself has furnished to the world: 
and what are they? Let me repeat them: 1st. The 
revolutionary right of Texas, which has no appli- 
cation to this case. 2d. The agreement of Santa 
Ana, (not a treaty, as the President contended in 
his message,) by which he was permitted to return 
to Mexico, thereby depriving Texas of the oppor- 
tunity of establishing herself on the Rio Grande. 
3d. The capacity of Texas, if not then, in a short 
time, to establish her claim to this boundary by force. 
4th. Our title by the Louisiana treaty. And lastly, 
and to which all these other grounds of title are but 
subsidiary, the necessity which subsists for making 
the Rio Grande the boundary between the two 
countries. Here is all that can be said of our claim. 
This claim, Mr. Donelson was qualified to pre- 
sent in all its force. He made up his opinions 
upon the best authorities; and here is the summing 
up of his investigation ; and the grounds, as he 
has given them to us, upon which we are to rest 
our claim to this territory, amount to this and no 
more: that we deem the territory necessary to us, 
and have power to wrest it from Mexico. Sir, the 
highwayman could make out an equally valid claim 
to the traveller's purse. Sure I am, that there is 
not to be found in the history of modern civilized 
nations an instance of grosser outrage than the 
seizure of this Mexican territory upon the grounds 
set forth by this ajjent of the President. 

And now, sir, how stands the case? Is it true, 
as the President has asserted, that the left bank of 
the Rio Grande was a part of Texas, which the 
Constitution made it his duty to defend ? Is it true, 
as he stated at the commencement of hostilities, 
that " American blood had been spilt upon Ameri- 
can soil.'" And is it true, as you stated in your 
preamble to the war bill, " that whereas, by the 
act of Mexico, war exists between that republic and 
the United States"? I cannot hope for a candid 
answer to these inquiries from the majority upon 
this floor. You have placed yourself in a position 
where you cannot answer them. But I am not 
mistaken in the response that will be given to them 
by the moral and intelligent portion of the people 
of this country. They will soon speak to you their 
views of this subject, and their condemnation of 
this war, in a language that you will not be likely 
lo misunderstand. 

I have voted against this war from a belief that 
it was commenced by the President, and not the 
people, in pursuance of that corrupt contract to 
which I have referred, made between him and the 
people of Texas. I voted against it, because I was 
not willing to sanction the outrage upon the Con- 
stitution, committed by the President in commen- 



cing this war. I voted against it, because I be- 
lieved it to be a war of conquest and aggression, 
having for its ulterior object the extension and per- 
petuation of human slavery. I have voted against 
supplies for its prosecution, because I believed the 
best means for securing a speedy peace betweea. 
the two Governments, and of maintaining the true 
interests and honor of the country, would be to 
withdraw our army within the limits of the United 
States. 

Now, sir, to what advantages can the friends of 
the war point me that will be likely to result from 
its further posecution ? What are we to gain by 
this waste of treasure and havoc of human life, 
that any true friend of the country can rejoice at? 
If there be anything, no gentleman upon this floor 
has as yet pointed it out. I believe the opinion is 
fast gaining ground here, that this is to be a war 
without results; or, if any, they will be unmiti- 
gated disaster to the country. No one anticipates 
any other possible result than the further conquest 
of Mexican territory; and, sir, when this is effect- 
ed, you will have a question presented that will 
shake this [Government to its foundations. The 
question whether slavery shall be extended over 
the conquered territory, will at once come up for 
consideration. Southern gentlemen have already 
said upon this floor, that the South will never con- 
sent that any portion of this conquered country 
shall come into this Union as free territory. I 
know that there is an equally firm determination 
on the part of the North that it shall not come in 
as slave territory. And I warn gentlemen of the 
South not to deceive themselves upon this subject, 
by relying upon the past action of the North on 
this great question. There will be no more con- 
cessions upon the part of the North. The people 
have taken this subject into their own hands; and 
never, since the organization of the Government, 
was there a deeper interest awakened in regard to 
it than at this time. And, sir, after the present 
session, you will have from our section of the 
Union no more corrupt politicians upon this floor, 
who will be found truckling to this gigantic slave 

Sower. The gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. 
■urt,] when he said the other day that there was 
a rapidly-growing feeling at the North against sla- 
very, was entirely right. The time was, when 
northern politicians were upon this floor aiding 
you even in gagging their own constituents; but that 
time has gone by forever. If you count upon aid 
from this class of men, you count without your 
host. I will not say that your old allies, for politi- 
cal purposes, may not again combine with you to 
promote this slave interest; if they do, and that 
purpose is known at home, very few of them will 
ever be able to find their way into this Hall. You 
will have men hereafter from the free States upon 
this floor whose faces will be set as a flint against 
the further expansion of slavery, or the furthor 
increase of the slave power of this Union. 

I know this is a very exciting question, and one 
which appeals upon both sides to the strongest 
feelings of our nature; and in giving a candid ex- 
pression of my views, I may endanger the social 
relations which exist between me and certain gen- 
tlemen whose opinio. is upon this subject are the 
very extremes of my own. But we hare arrived 



8 



&t a crisis in the history of this institution of sla- 
very, and it is due to ourselves and our common 
country that there be no concealment of our views 
with regard to it. Let the feelings of the different 
sections, of this country be made known, so that 
in the future action of this Government concerning 
Blavery, we may know what are to be the conse- 

Suences. In presenting my own views I shall en- 
eavor to present the views of the section of coun- 
try I represent. I need not say I hold slavery to be 
wrong in itself, and a flagrant outrage upon the 
rights of humanity. And, sir, if our human na- 
ture can be taught upon this subject, then have I 
been taught these opinions by those who in their 
day were among the most distinguished men in 
the slaveholding section of this Union. I adopt 
the statement contained in our Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, in the sense in which it was understood 
by its author: " I hold these truths to be self- 
-evident that all men are created equal; and that 

• they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
•inalienable rights; and that, among these, are 

• life,1iberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These 
were sentiments of universal acceptance at the for- 
mation of the Government. But they are now not 
only denied in practice, but even their principles 
are gravely controverted. 

I content myself with this brief exposition of my 
views of slavery, and now ask, for a very short 
time, the attention of the committee to its condi- 
tion at the formation of the Government; the esti- 
mation in which it was held by all parties in 
that day; its extension, and the means by which 
that extension has been effected. 

I have been led to believe from the history of 
those times, that at the organization of the Gov- 
ernment, slavery in this Union was upon the de- 
cline. It had been abolished in many of the 
northern States; and in other of those States, where 
it still existed , efforts were then being made for its 
speedy abolition. The spirit of that day was 
against it. It was rebuked by those principles 
which brought the Government into being; and 
the distinguished men in all sections of our coun- 
try looked forward to a day, not distant, when it 
would be abolished throughout the Union. Cer- 
tain it is, that no one at that time contemplated that 
this institution would enlarge itself, and that this 
republican Government, based upon the doctrine 
of the equal rights of men, would be balanced be- 
tween free and slave institutions. And, sir, I 
aver that the extension of slavery in this country 
has been in violation of the intentions and expect- 
ations of those who framed the Government. 

The ordinance for the government of the North- 
western Territory was enacted by the Continental 
Congress the same year that the Constitution was 
adopted, and that portion of the ordinance which 
forever prohibited slavery from that territory re- 
ceived the unanimous support of the members 
representing the slaveholding States in that Con- 
gress. This constituted all the territory then be- 
longing to the United States. I do not understand 
that the purchase of Louisiana, or any other terri- 
tory, was, at that time, anticipated by any one. 
Here, then, was presented the question, whether 
any new States thereafter to be brought into the 
Union should have power to hold slaves? And it 



is most extraordinary, if there was a public senti- 
ment in any portion of the country favorable to 
the extension of slavery, that it did not manifest 
itself on this occasion. The restriction of slavery 
to its then existing limits seemed to have been 
conceded as a matter of course, and as one of the 
necessary results of carrying out the principles 
upon which the Government was founded. 

But this is not the only evidence of what was 
the public sentiment of that day in relation to sla- 
very. I might refer the committee to the declara- 
tions of a long list of distinguished southern gen- 
tlemen, to show what the opinions of the South 
were at that time upon this subject. I might refer 
to the opinions of Washington, Jefferson, Mar- 
shall, Wythe, Pendleton, Mason, and many others; 
all of whom expressed opinions of slavery, which, 
when now uttered, are regarded by the descend- 
ants of those great men as the ravings of fanati- 
cism. 

The year before the adoption of the Constitution, 
a Doctor Price, of England, published a pamphlet 
against slavery, which was circulated in Virginia 
and other States. It was what would be now call- 
ed an abolition tract — such as are sometimes put 
forth in New England and other free States, and 
when they get south of Mason and Dixon's line, 
are burnt upon the public squares by the common 
hangman. I will read a letter from Mr. Jefferson 
to Doctor Price concerning this pamphlet, for the 
purpose of showing what were then his opinions 
upon slavery. 

Here Mr. T. read from the 1st volume of Jef- 
ferson's Works, page 268, as follows: 

" Your favor of July 2d came duly to hand. The concern 
you therein express as to the effect of your pamphlet in 
America, induces me to trouble you with some observations 
on that subject. 

" From my acquaintance with that country, I think I am 
able to judge with some degree of certainty of the manner 
in which it will have been received. South of the Chesa- 
peake, it will find but few readers concurring with it in sen- 
timent oil the subject of slavery. From the mouth to the 
head of the Chesapeake, the bulk of the people will approve 
of it in theory, and it will find a respectable minority ready 
to adopt it in practice ; a minority which, for weight and 
worth of character, preponderates against the greater num- 
ber who have not the courage to divest their families of a 
property, which, however, keeps their consciences unquiet. 
North of the Chesapeake, you may find here and there an 
opponent to your doctrine, as you may find here and there 
a robber and murderer, but in no greater number. In that 
part of America there being but few slaves, they can easily 
disencumber themselves of them; and emancipation is put 
in such a train that in a few years there will be no slaves 
northward of Maryland. In Maryland, I do not find such a 
disposition to begin the redress of this enormity as in Vir 
£inia. This is the next State to which we may turn our 
eyes, for the interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with 
avarice and oppression, a conflict where the sacred side is 
daily gaining recruits from the influx into office of young 
men grown and growing up. These have sucked in the 
principles of liberty, a.-* it were, with their mothers' milk, 
and it is to them I look with anxiety to turn the fate of this 
question. Bo not therefore discouraged. What you have 
written will do a great deal of good." 

These are the opinions of Jefferson, at the time 
the Constitution was adopted. And it is evident 
he believed that there were causes then operating 
that would abolish slavery throughout the Union. 
He says that "justice was in conflict with ava- 
1 rice and oppression, and in this conflict the sacred 
1 side was daily gaining recruits. " But the gentle- 
man from South Carolina, [Mr. Sims,] told us a 



day or two ago, that slavery was a divine institu- 
tion, and that all Abolition movements had their 
origin in infidelity. Now, inasmuch as Mr. Jef- 
ferson was in France at the time of writing this 
letter, the gentleman may presume that these 
wicked impressions of slavery were given to his 
mind by French infidels: [Mr. Sims. Yes, sir, 
nothing but French infidelity.] I will then give 
the gentleman the opinions of another distin- 
guished southern man of that day, who, it can- 
not be presumed, was under such influence. 1 
refer him to the opinions of Colonel Mason, con- 
tained in a speech made in the Virginia Conven- 
tion upon that clause in the Constitution of the 
United States which prohibits the African slave 
trade. It shows what were his views of the di- 
vine character of this institution. This speech 
may be found in the fourth volume of Elliot's De- 
bates. Mr. Mason said: " The poor despise labor 
' when performed by slaves. They prevent the 
1 emigration of whites, who really enrich and 
' strengthen a country. They produce the most 
' pernicious effect on manners. Every master of 
' slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the 
'judgment of Heaven on a country. As nations 
'* cannot be rewarded or punished, in the next 
' world, they must be punished in this." I might 
multiply quotations, and show that these views of 
Mr. Mason were the views entertained by all the 
leading men of the South at that time. And can 
it be supposed that they desired the extension of 
slavery, and the accumulation of those horrors 
alluded to by Mr. Mason in this speech ? I will 
not do such gross injustice to their memory, as to 
suppose it. Let those who are the natural guar- 
dians of their fame upon this floor, do it if they 
like. 

Now, what hasbeenthe history of this institu- 
tion from that day to this? It has been one of 
constant encroachment upon liberty. Here, in the 
first place only by permission, and its existence 
barely tolerated, it has, by that combination which 
this interest is always capable of making against 
the free States, enlarged and strengthened itself, 
until it has become the directing and governing 
power in this country. And while gentlemen have 
constantly cried out to us of the free States, "Hands 
off," it has been, through the agency of the Gen- 
eral Government, that this enlargement of slavery 
has been effected. The interests of the country 
required the purchase of Louisiana, and the pur- 
chase was made with fifteen millions of our money. 
It became the territory of this professedly free re- 
public; but no snoner was it ours, than this interest 
seized upon it, and converted its fairest portions 
into slave States. So it was with Florida, which 
we purchased at an expense of five millions more; 
and this, too, slavery appropriated to herself. l!ut 
not content with these helps, which it has received 
from the General Government, it has gone out of 
the limits of our Union for territory, over which 
to spread this system of oppression. 

This is a brief outline of the views entertained 
on this subject in my section of the country. And 
I believe' that it is the view generally entertained 
in the free States. And depend upon it, whatever 
territory you may acquire from Mexico, by con- 
quest or otherwise, will never, with the consent of 



the North, come into this Union as slave territory. 
We have paid the last dollar, and fought the last 
battle, in the cause of oppression, in my opinion. 

During the progress of this argument', frequent 
allusion has been made to the Missouri compro- 
mise, (so called,) and southern gentlemen have con- 
tended that by this pretended compromise, the 
North have assented to slavery in all territory 
south of 36° 30'. I have recently taken pains to 
examine into the history of this much-talked-of 
compromise, and found it, what I expected to find 
it, a device got up by the South, and laid hold of by 
northern politicians to justify them at home for 
their subserviency in the cause of slavery. There 
never was such a compromise. There cannot well 
be a greater perversion of language than to call 
these proceedings a compromise. It seems, when 
the bill fortheadmissionof Missouri asa State into 
the Union was before the House, a proviso was 
ingrafted upon,the bill, prohibiting slavery in that 
State, which proviso was in these words: 

" There shall he neither slavery nor involuntary servitude 
in said State, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes; 
Whereof the. party shall have been duly convicted." 

This proviso or amendment was sustained by a 
very decided majority in the House, and in this 
form the bill went up to the Senate. The Senate 
disagreed to this amendment of the House. A 
committee of conference was had, and the mana- 
gers on the part of the House recommended that 
this clause in the bill be stricken out, and that the 
following proviso be added to the bill: 

'• That in all that territory ceded by France to the United 
States under the name of Louisiana, and which lies north 
of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not 
included within the limits of the State contemplated by this 
act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in tho 
punishment of crimes whereof the parlies shall have been 
duly convicted, -hall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited."' 

The question came up in the House upon stri- 
king out that clause in the bill which prohibited 
slavery in Missouri. This was the test vote, and 
here it is we are to look for a compromise if any 
such existed. I find, sir, upon analyzing this vote, 
that there were thirteen northern men, all told, 
who voted for striking out; four of whom were 
from Massachusetts, two from Connecticut, two 
from Pennsylvania, two from New York, two from 
New Jersey, and one from Rhode Island. Ohio 
was represented upon tliis floor at that time by 
four members, and I am happy, and proud, too, to 
have it in my power to say that none of them went 
for striking out this prohibitory clause in that bill. 
The free States then had in this House ninety- 
nine members, and the meager minority of thir- 
teen, we are told, irrevocably committed the North 
to the extension of slavery south of 36° 30'. Those 
men, sir, were northern deserters; they disregard- 
ed the well-known will of the North, and I might 
add, the dictates of justice and humanity, in voting 
with tin; South on tint question. And did the 
North by any acl of thi ir afterwards acquiesce in 
or approve of the vote of these thirteen men ? No, 
the facts are notoriously the contrary of this. There 
was a general feeling of indignation towards them 
for this voir throughout tin: entire North. So in- 
tense was this feeling, as is well known to many 
gentlemen here, that on returning to their homes, 
many of these men were followed by the hi 



10 



and execrations of their incensed constituents. 
They were regarded as the betrayers of the North, 
and very few of them were able to live down the 
consequences of that vote. Most of them went 
into obscurity, and have never since been heard of 
in'political life. Some two or three of them were, 
by peculiar circumstances, again restored to the 
confidence of the people. So far from the North 
acquiescing in this vote, there were the strongest 
demonstrations on her part against it. And as fur- 
ther proof of this, I ask the attention of the com- 
mittee to certain resolutions of the New York 
Legislature, passed the very next year after this 
Tote was given. 
These are the resolutions: 

" Whereas the inhibiting the further extension of slavery 
in these United Status is a subject of deep concern among 
the people of this State ; and whereas we consider slavery 
an evil much to be deplored, and that every constitutional 
barrier should be interposed to prevent its further extension, 
and that the Constitution of the United States clearly gives 
Congress the right to require of new States not comprised 
within the original boundaries of these United States, the 
prohibition ol slavery as the condition of their admission 
into the Union : Therefore, 

"Resolved, That our Senators be instructed, and our Rep- 
resentatives in Congress requested, to oppose the admission 
as a State into the Union, of any territory not comprised a3 
aforesaid, without making the prohibition of slavery therein 
an indispensable condition of admission." 

We see by these resolutions that New York did 
not regard herself compromised upon this question 
of slavery, by the vote on the Missouri bill. In 
these resolutions she instructs her Senators and re- 
quests her Representatives in Congress to vote 
against the admission of any State into the Union, 
wherever located , whether north or south of thirty- 
six-thirty, unless by the constitution of that State 
slavery should be forever prohibited. And these 
resolutions, as I have learned, were called forth by 
the indignation that was felt throughout that whole 
State at the course taken by her two Representa- 
tives upon that bill. But New York was not alone; 
the other free States entertained the same views. 
All regarded the vote of these thirteen northern 
men, by which the clause in that bill prohibiting 
slavery was stricken out, and this pretended com- 
promise clause inserted, as an act of treachery to 
the North. 

There are other unanswerable objections which 
I might urge against the right of the South to in- 
sist on this vote as a compromise. First, the want 
of power in Congress, by an ordinary act of legis- 
lation, to restrain or limit the action of the people 
upon a question of this character. In the second 
place, the very compromise which the South here 
nets up, they have themselves disregarded. Texas 
was admitted into this Union by the unanimous 
voice of the South, with a boundary extending 
far north of this compromise line, and with a con- 
stitution which not only authorized slavery, but 
prohibited her legislature from abolishing it. And 
even at the present session we have seen southern 
gentlemen very unanimously voting against a pro- 
vision for excluding slavery from Oregon. I find 
gentlemen's opinions of this compromise vary ac- 
cording to the circumstances or according to the 
objects designed to be promoted. Whenever sla- 
very is to be extended, then it furnishes no obsta- 
cle; but when any measure is before us for limiting 



or restraining slavery, then this compromise is 
thrust into our faces. 

But suppose there was in the vote upon the Mis- 
souri bill a compromise between the North and 
South, how can it be made to apply to territory in 
Mexico ? By the very terms of this clause, insisted 
on as a compromise, it only applied to the Louisi- 
ana purchase. Its language is, " all that territory 
' ceded by France to the United States lying north 
' of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north 
' latitude, slavery shall be forever prohibited,' - ' &c. 
Now, no one will pretend that this Mexican terri- 
tory is a part of the Louisiana purchase, unless, 
like President Polk, they go back of our treaties 
with Spain and Mexico, by which we conceded 
this territory to be no part of that purchase. No 
one, during the progress of this discussion, I be- 
lieve, has advocated this disgraceful doctrine. 
Whatever pretext, then, the South may resort to 
in order to give color to this extension of slavery 
in Mexico, this Missouri compromise will be among 
the last that will be likely to find favor at the North. 
For myself, I acknowledge no compromises in re- 
lation to slavery except the compromises of the 
Constitution, and those we shall abide by so long 
as they are adhered to on the part of the South. 

There is one other matter to which I wish to 
refer before I take my seat. An effort is making 
here to give a new character to this war. Certain 
gentlemen of the northern Democracy tell us the 
war is not to be prosecuted for the extension of 
slavery, but for the conquest of free territory, to 
counterbalance that which we acquired by the an- 
nexation of Texas. I am much mistaken in the 
people of the free States if they are willing to 
prosecute the war for this object. It is true the 
annexation of Texas has awakened a very deep 
anti-slavery feeling at the North. They regard it 
as a triumph of the slave power. And in truth it 
never had any very sincere friends there, even 
among those who gave it their support. It was 
sustained upon party considerations; and these 
having subsided, the measure is now left to be 
judged of upon its merits; and this " sober second 
thought" of the people is not very favorable to the 
political prospects of those northern politicians 
who aided in bringing this misfortune upon the 
country. Now, it is to be supposed, as a matter 
of course, that gentlemen here will attempt to avoid 
these consequences which have already overtaken 
them, as the recent elections show. To effect 
this, nothing would more naturally suggest itself 
than to consult this northern feeling against slave- 
ry. But. they cannot separate themselves from the 
war; and thus it is that gentlemen are now en- 
deavoring to raise the impression that the war is a 
northern measure; the antagonism of slavery, and 
the means by which the balance of power between 
the free and slave interests of the Union is to be 
restored. This balance of power the people of 
the free States might desire to see restored; but I 
do not believe they will consent to a second robbery 
of Mexican territory to accomplish it. But what 
assurance have wc that this territory, when ac- 
quired, will be free? This is a question that de- 
serves to be very carefully considered, for we have 
already sufficiently cursed our race by the extension 
of our territory; and I understand that the public 



11 



opinion of the free States is irrevocably made up, 
that it will consent to the admission of no more 
slave territory into this Union. But can you pre- 
serve this conquered territory free from the pollu- 
tion of slavery? I think we ought to have learn- 
ed enough by this time of the desperate energy and 
lawlessness of slavery to know that it will over- 
leap any barrier that you may interpose to its pro- 
gress, and spread itself over every square mile of 
this territory you may conquer. From the location 
of this country, its climate and productions, it must 
necessarily be settled by a southern population, who 
will carry with them into the country their slaves, 
and then, basing themselves upon that doctrine 
already advocated on this floor, that the Territories 
of the Union have a right to govern themselves by 
their own laws, and to shape their own internal 
policy according to their own will, slavery will be 
established in due form. What then will be our 
remedy? We may talk, to be sure, of the uncon- 
stitutionality of these proceedings: and what will 
that avail us? It will be like whistling down the 
wind. We shall have the choice of two things — 
either to submit, as we have done to the unconsti- 
tutional acquisition of Texas, or dissolve our pres- 
ent Government. Now, sir, I have no disposition 
to press this subject to such a fearful issue. It 
strikes me that the true ground for every man sin- 
cerely opposed to the further extension of slavery 
is, to oppose the further acquisition of territory. 
And if we cannot successfully take our stand here, 
then I am prepared for ulterior measures; and, de- 
plorable as I believe the consequences will be, I 
much prefer them to the extension of slavery. 

But these gentlemen who are prosecuting this 
war of conquest have not, by (heir action either 
during this or the last session of Congress, evinced 
any very strong opposition to the extension of 
slavery. At the last Congress, as I have already 
said, by the annexation resolutions, declared to 
be the fundamental law of union, slavery was 
excluded from all territory north of 36° 30'. 
This is the language of the resolutions: "And 
1 such States as may be formed out of that por- 
' tion of said territory lying south of thirty - 
' six degrees arid thirty minutes north latitude, 
' commonly known as the Missouri compromise 
' line, shall be admitted into the Union with, or 
' without slavery, as the people of each State ask- 
' ing admission may desire; and such State or 
' States as shall be formed out of said territory 
' north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery 
' and involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall 
' be prohibited." Yet, when Texas came to be 
admitted as a Slate into this Union, with a consti- 
tution extending slavery to all territory north oP 
this compromise line, these gentlemen gave it their 
support, in violation of the resolutions which, by 
their terms, were declared to be the fundamental 
law of annexation. How tins vote can be recon- 
ciled with opposition to the extension of slavery, 1 
leave for these gentlemen to settle. And, again, at 
this session, these gentlemen are willing to estab- 
lish the western boundary of Texas at the Rio 
Grande, where they know she has no more title than 
to the West Indies. No one will pretend that the 
. territory on the left bank of the Rio Grande is now 
stained with the foot-print of a slave. No fetters 



now clank upon that soil. Mexico, however, un~ 
enlightened in the theory of civil government, has 
manifested far more regard for the principle of hu- 
man liberty than the people of this country. She 
acted consistently with her republican professions, 
and, in 1829, abolished slavery throughout her 
dominions; and abolished slavery upon that very 
soil where you are now seeking to reestablish it. 
And yet gentlemen tell us at the same time, they 
are opposed to the extension of slavery. If you are 
willing to extend slavery to the Rio Grande, and 
throughout all that vast territory claimed by Texas 
lying between this river and the Nueces, I do not 
see why, upon principle, you can object to the ex- 
tension of slavery throughout all Mexico. It is in 
vain to take shelter under the plea that the Rio 
Grande furnishes a natural boundary between 
the two countries. It is not so. It is no bound- 
ary and never can be a boundary between free 
and slave institutions. And if peace be conclu- 
ded between the two governments to-morrow, 
fixing on the Rio Grande as the boundary, it 
will be but an armed peace, and a year would 
not pass away before slavery would furnish new 
cause of war between the two governments. 
Here is a river, but about three hundred yards 
across, with a valley fifteen miles broad. Imme- 
diately on the right bank of that river, is one of 
the principal cities in this part of Mexico. Now, 
how long will it be before your slaves will escape 
across that river? And will the Mexicans surren- 
der these slaves? No. Their humanity will 
prompt them not to do it. And can you make 
any treaty by which they will oblige themselves 
to do this? Never; for you cannot procure the 
ratification of any such treaty even by your own 
Government. Never will there be found, I trust, 
two-thirds of the United States Senate willing to 
ratify such a treaty. No man representing the 
free States in that body will dare to ratify a treaty 
that provides for the return of unoffending men 
into bondage. And if these fugitives are not given 
up, will it not produce a border war between the 
inhabitants of the two governments ? Why, here 
among ourselves, a people of the same origin, 
governed by the same laws, and bound together 
by a thousand social, civil, and political ties, it 
has gone near to produce this result. How cer- 
tainly, then, would this cause produce hostilities 
between a people differing in everything upon 
which our friendly relations depend — in origin, 
manners, customs, religion, and even now already 
deeply exasperated toward each other ? 

Slave and free institutions can have no intercourse. 
They cannot exist together in safety; and moun- 
tains as tall as the peaks of Chimborazo, would 
hardly furnish a sufficient boundary between them. 
There is one boundary which wc may adopt with 
some probability of a continued peace, and that is 
the desert to which 1 have referred. It separates 
the habitable portions of the territory bordering 
upon the two rivers, by some hundred miles, and 
although not an ad equals boundary for slavery, 
it is the only one that promises even the hope of 
permanent tranquillity to the people of the two 
governments. 

Now, can any one believe that the objects of 
this war — either the conquest of more Mexican 






12 



territory, or the establishment of the Rio Grande 
as the boundary of Texas — will be secured with- 
out imminent danger to the interests of this coun- 
try. I aver it as my solemn conviction, that if 
either were secured, it would be an event that 
every sincere friend of the country would deplore. 
But if we desire it, can these objects be secured? 
I do not believe it. Mexico never will conclude a 
treaty with you upon these terms. This is a mat- 
ter that involves her national existence. You 
robbed her of one of her provinces — for it can be 
called by no other name. You, without provo- 
cation, invaded others; and when she attempted to 
repel this unjust invasion, our victorious armies 
butchered her inhabitants upon their hearth- 
stones; and you now ask a surrender of more than 
one-third of the fairest portion of her dominions. 
If this be granted, what hope can she have that 
you will not seize upon the remaining portion of 
her possessions, and blot out her very name from 
among the family of nations ? 

Had the combined powers of the universe offer- 
ed to us a series of injuries like those we have in- 
flicted upon Mexico, and then should submit to us 
a proposition of peace, such as we now propose to 
that people, what would we decide to do? How- 
ever gigantic and terrible the power that might be 
combined against us, would we make this surren- 
der of territory to purchase our peace and our dis- 
grace ? Never would we do it ! No, never ! We 
would throw the last ball, split the last bomb, and 
bury ourselves behind the last dike, rather than 
bring this dishonor upon our name. And what 
we would do, Mexico, in her pride of country, and 
from that love of her institutions, inherent in every 
people, and, above all, from that keen sense of 
outrage and insult whicb we have heaped upon her, 
has already resolved to do. This great nation, I 
doubt not, could subdue Mexico, were all of her 
vast resources combined for this object; but it 
Y/ould not be until her fields were whitened, and 
every mountain gorge choked, with the bones of 
our dead. And will this enlightened and Chris- 
tian nation press this war to this dreadful extremi- 



ty? It will not. You will be arrested in your 
bloody career. The people will soon force you 
to call home your army, and terminate this dis- 
graceful war. 

These are some of the reasons which have in- 
duced me to oppose this war. My conscience 
approves of the course I have pursued, and I trust 
for its vindication to that decision which a just and 
generous people will yet make upon this subject. 

[Mr. Tilden's hour here expired.] 

Mr. McILVAINE obtained the floor, and yield- 
ed at request to 

Mr. McDOWELL, of Virginia, who said he 
wished to make an inquiry of the gentleman who 
had just taken his seat, [Mr. Tilden,] but could 
find no pause in his argument to propound it. 
The gentleman, in his review of the anti-slavery 
sentiments of the South, produced numerous quo- 
tations from numerous gentlemen of distinction: 
not only of distinction, but of paramount political 
importance in our country: the opinions of Jeffer- 
son, Wythe, Randolph, George Mason, and others 
in Virginia, on the subject of slavery. I wanted 
to ask of that gentleman if he could point to a soli- 
tary fact in the writings, speeches, or political 
transactions of either one of these gentlemen, that 
gives to the General Government any power what- 
soever over the subject of slavery, so as to limit 
it, qualify it, abridge it, or in any manner whatso- 
ever dispose of it? 

Mr. TILDEN replied: I think it is true that no 
southern man ever occupied that ground, with one 
exception. Mr. Madison, if I recollect right, did 
contend that the General Government would have 
power over that question as a war measure; and I 
wish to say to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
McDowell] that this is my opinion. I deny that 
this Government has any power over the institu- 
tion of slavery within the limits of the several 
States. But at the same time I contend it has the 
power to restrain the extension of this institution; 
and that this is a power we are bound to exercise, 
and confine slavery to it3 constitutional limits. 






<•• 









3 54 



^ '"' A* 



* V 










iO v »iv* *> v % **: 








<*»„ *. 







. & **, .y& 






^r 



,tf ^. 









<£. e " ° A u "^ 





' J? 



















A°* 




r"V. . 





t^ « * <\ 



>* 



,0* 







°^ 


>oV* 




i9v\ 


! o A 










^V*v 










<v *„ 












<F 







FSB 78 

"T"^?* N MANCHESTER 

INDIANA J 




O N 



^ ^ 



. G* \ 



